JUDGMENT AMANULLAH KHAN YASINZAI, J.-- Petitioner has challenged the order dated 14..5.20P2 pa*ed by the Selection Committee whereby her application for admission to the Bolan Medical College (BMC) for the MBBS 1st Year in Session 2000-2001 has been rejected.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that petitioner after passing her F.Sc. And clearing IBA Entry test being eligible for admission in MBBS lst year in BMC applied for Session 2000-2001 against the reserved. Seat of Lasbela District. Name of the petitioner appeared at S. No. 1 of the merit list of Lasbela District. Before the Selection Committee, respondent No. 6 Shabana raised Objection against the local certificate of the petitioner from District Lasbela, that petitioner is in possession of two local certificates, therefore, under para 26 of the prospectus, she is not eligible for admission, thus under the said para her candidature is liable to be rejected respondent No. 6 submitted that she has never been in possession of two local/domicile certificates. It was alleged before the Selection Committee that father of petitioner namely Khalil Ahmed is in 1 possession of local certificate from Lasbela and domicile certificate from Karachi District South. The matter was referred to DCO Lasbela for enquiry and parties were directed to appear before the DCO. Enquiry was held by the DCO Bela, the parties were also heard. Report was also sought from DCO Karachi South who verified that father of petitioner had obtained domicile certificate on 11.3.2002 and further name-of the petitioner was not entered in the said domicile certificate. DCO submitted his report. Matter came-up before Selection Committee who did not entertain the application of the petitioner. Thereafter Review Application was filed before Selection Committee which was also rejected. Petitioner also submitted application before Principal BMC and Secretary Law. Enquiry was conducted, wherein it was found that father of petitioner has obtained domicile certificate from Karachi South but petitioner has obtained local certificate from Lasbela and has throughout studied in Lasbela; therefore, it was opined that her case does not fall under para 26 of the prospectus. Further the learned Secretary also opined that since she has not obtained any other local or domicile certificate and her name does not appear in the domicile certificate obtained by her father from Karachi; therefore, she is eligible for admission. When the matter came-up before the Selection Committee, the Committee held that since her father has obtained domicile certificate from Karachi, therefore, she could use her father's domicile any time; thus, her candidature was rejected, Hence the instant petition has been filed. Notices were sent to the respondents. In response thereto, respondent No. 2 i.e. Principal BMC filed parawise comments and counter-affidavit was also filed by the respondent No. 6 Kavita Devi. The other respondents did not appear despite service.
3. I have heard Mr. Mujib Ahmed Hashmi, Advocate for the petitioner, Syed Ayyaz Zahoor, Advocate for respondent No. 7 Kavita Devi and Mr. Ashraf Khan Tanoli, Advocate-General for the official respondents.
4. Mr. Mujib Ahmed Hashmi, Advocate for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a bona fide local of District Lasbela. She received her education from District Lasbela and also passed her F.Sc.
From Government Degree College, Lasbela. Family of the petitioner is settled in Bela and she has n6t obtained any local/domicile certificate from any other province; therefore, her case does not fall under para 26 of the prospectus. Learned counsel further contended that it is the status of the candidate which has to b6 considered. Even if her father has obtained local certificate from Karachi, that would not debar the petitioner from admission as admittedly petitioner had obtained a local certificate only from Lasbela and has not applied for any other local certificate inasmuch as her name does not appear in the domicile certificate obtained by her from Karachi.
5. Syed Ayyaz Zahoor, Advocate for respondent No. 7 Kavita Devi contended that since petitioner's father had obtained domicile certificate from Karachi; therefore, it was rightly held by the Selection Committee that she could use the same for her benefit any time and further stated that her case clearly falls within the purview of para 26 whereby it has come on record that at the time of admission she was holding two local certificates, thus under para 26 she was not eligible for admission.
6. Mr. Ashraf Khan Tanoii, Advocate-General did not support the impugned Order and contended that it is the status of the candidate that is to be seen and further stated that admittedly petitioner was in possession of only one local certificate issue to her by DCO Lasbela and she was not in possession of any other local/domicile certificate. He further stated that though the report of Law Secretary and DCO were in favour of the petitioner but Selection Committee has erred in forming a negative view holding there that she could use her father's domicile certificate any time in future.
Learned AG further stated that till filing of the application, petitioner did not use the same and additionally, purpose of local/domicile certificate is only to get a seat in provincial quota against the reserved seat of the District from where the said certificate is issued.
7. We have heard the arguments of the Learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. It is pertinent to note that the purpose of local and domicile certificate is only to enable the holder to apply for reserved seat in provincial quota reserved for the1 District from where the Local Certificate is issued. Generally such local and domicile certificate is issued to those students who are bona fide students of the District. For this purpose Committee has been constituted in every district to make recommendations for the issuance of such certificates. It may be pointed out that such certificates are not "regulated by any law; the same are passed under administrative order of the concerned DCO and purpose of the same is to enable the holder to get admission against the reserved seats from where said certificate Is issued or for employment purposes. Now the case of the petitioner is to be seen in the light of the above position. Perusal of the record reveals that petitioner was granted local certificate by the District Administration from Lasbela District way back in 1994 and further record reveals that her entire family has been settled in District Lasbela and other family members haye been getting admission against the reserved seats of District Lasbela in different professional Colleges. Perusal of the impugned Order, and report of the DCO is quite clear wherein it is mentioned that petitioner's family is well-known local family of District Lasbela and as far as petitioner is concerned at the time of submission of forms she was only in possession of one local certificate whereas in the domicile certificate obtained by her father, her name does not appear and there is nothing on record to show that petitioner had ever used the same. It would be convenient to reproduce herein below the relevant portion of the Order of the Selection Committee as under:- " After that the Selection Committee during its meeting dated 30.3.2002, rejected her application under para No. 26 of the prospectus during the academic session 2000-2001.
Thereafter, Miss Sana .Has submitted an application addressed to the Chairman Selection Committee and copy endorsed to the Principal BMC and the Secretary Law. Consequently legal opinion in the matter was taken vide letter No. OPN: 5-2- law/92-1102-4, dated 4.4.2QQ2 from the Secretary Law Department.
Accordingly the matter was once again referred to the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee during its meeting dated 8.4.2002 decided with majority that as the domicile certificate of her father is still valid, which mean she automatically she has a domicile of Karachi and she could use her father's domicile any time, hence she is not eligible for admission under para No. 26 of the prospectus during the academic session 2000- 2001".
Perusal of the impugned Order would reveal that after rejection of her application under para 26 of the prospectus petitioner filed an application which was placed before the Selection Committee and als6 legal opinion was sought from Secretary Law. It is pertinent to mention here that opinion of Secretary Law has been placed before us wherein it was recommended that since petitioner is in possession of only one local certificate and her name does not appear in the domicile certificate obtained by her father; therefore, she was eligible for admission. The Selection Committee has only refused admission of the petitioner on the ground that she can use her father's domicile any time.
8. The contention of Learned AG has force that such observations of the committee are based on negative approach and on hypothesis. We are persuaded to agree with the Learned AG that from the afore-stated facts and circumstances it can be safely concluded that petitioner *has studied throughout in District Lasbela and her family is well-settled local of Lasbela and owns immovable property in the said District and has been living there since long. Nothing has been brought on record to show that petitioner, had applied for any other local certificate inasmuch as her name was not mentioned even in her father's domicile certificate obtained from Karachi and till filing of the application she had not used domicile certificate of her father issued from Karachi. As observed above, the purpose of local and domicile certificate is only to enable the holder to apply on the provincial quota against the reserved seat of the district from which certificate is issued.
9. The observation of the Selection Committee that she could use the said domicile certificate of her father issued from Karachi are frivolous and untenable. It may further be pointed out the Selection Committee ignored the provisions of para 21 and para 22 of the prospectus wherein admission to BMC is open to genuine local and domicile students of the province and further under para 22 it has been clearly mentioned that candidate in possession of local certificate issued by DCO is eligible to apply for admission against the reserved seat of such District. The Selection Committee in the case of the petitioner has ignored the status of the petitioner whereas she was in possession of a local certificate issued in her favour and she was bona fide resident of District Lasbela. Only on the basis of domicile certificate issued to her father from another province would not debar the petitioner from admission as she has. Never used the said domicile certificate. Thus the Selection Committee has erred in ignoring the status of the petitioner herself and has erroneously held that the petitioner might use the domicile certificate of her father. The conclusion drawn by the Selection Committee is based on future presumption that she might use the same.
Thus the conclusion drawn by the Selection Committee is not tenable. We are fortified with the doctrine laid down t in the case of Sumayya Zareen v. Selection Committee, BMC and others (1991 SCM R 2099) wherein the following observations were made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court:- "11. Since the words "as to whether a candidate actually belongs to the District Agency of which he/she has produced the local/domicile certificate" have been used, it may be appropriate to refer to the ordinary literary meaning of ,-the key word "belong" as it is a well-settled principle of interpretation of statutes or the rules framed thereunder that the words have to be given their ordinary meaning in the absence of any special meaning assigned to them under the relevant statute or the statutory rules, In this behalf reference may be made to a judgment of this Court in the case of Ashiq Hussain and others v. The State (1989 SCM R 392).
The Concise Oxford Dictionary (Sixth Edition 1976) and Chambers 20th Dictionary (New Edition), define the above word as follows:- "belong v.i.
1. Be rightly assigned to (as duty, right, possession, natural or usual accompaniment, part member, inhabitant, appendage); to, be member of (club, household, grade of society, etc.) 2.
Be resident in or connected with.
3. Be rightly placed or classified (in, under, etc.); fit a specified environment etc. (ME, app. An intensive, f. BE- 2, of ME longen belong f. OE langian (geland at hand)." "belong bi-long, v.i. (in all senses usu. With to) to go along (with): to pertain (to): to be the property (of): to be part or appendage (of), or in any way connected (with): to be specially the business (of)."
From the above-quoted definition, it is. Evident that the above word has very wide connotation as it inter alia includes a resident, native and an inhabitant, In the absence of any special definition in the prospectus there seems to be no justifiable reason to place narrow or strict construction. We may point out that Article 15 of the Constitution confer right on every citizen subject to reasonable restriction imposed by law in public interest to enter and move freely throughout Pakistan and to reside and settle in any part thereof. The above Constitutional fundamental right cannot be in any manner impaired or defeated directly or indirectly. Above para 34 of the prospectus is to be construed as to advance the objective envisaged -by the above Article.
12. On the basis of the above un-controverted facts that the appellant was bom in Lasbela in 1970, was brought up there, got her entire education there except her Intermediate Examination for want of a Girls College, it cannot be held that she does not belong to Lasbela. The mere fact that the appellant's father came to the Province of Balochistan after joining service as a teacher in 1969, would not negate the above status of the appellant, It has not been brought bn record that the appellant in fact has been residing at any other place than Lasbela or Quetta for her college education. The alleged Karachi address in the service book of the appellant's father and its alleged alteration by committing alleged forgery by the appellant's father, were consideration alien to the jurisdiction of the Committee. It is the status of a candidate which is to be determined and not of the family as pointed out hereinabove. Additionally, we may point out that there is no material on record to conclude that the appellant' father has not opted to settle down permanently in Lasbela by purchasing a plot of land and by raising construction of a house thereon and residing therein with his family and by obtaining a domicile certificate on 12.9.1978. The impugned order of the Committee is apparently in conflict with the above-quoted unreported judgment of this Court."
10. Consequently, as a result of the above discussion, it is held that petitioner at the time of admission was in possession of only one local certificate nor had used the domicile certificate of her father issued in her favour from Karachi. Thus her case does not fall under para 26 of the prospectus. Consequently the petition is accepted and Selection Committee is directed to admit the petitioner against one of the reserved seats of District Lasbel .There is no order as to costs.